timothygrayphoto

<p>How do you fall in love online?</p>

<p><strong>@Jeff Spirer:</strong><br>

You are confusing Pixels Per Inch (PPI) with Dots Per Inch (DPI).</p>

<p>Monitors and similar electronic displays use PPI. Printers use DPI.</p>

<p>PPI should not be ignored when resizing for web display any more than DPI should be ignored when sending an image file to a specific printer. Most monitors can only resolve 72PPI - sending anything higher is a waste. DPI, on the other hand, if device specific - try sending a 72DPI file to an inkjet printer and you'll end up with a fuzzy image. HP and Canon printers want 300DPI for best results; Epson printers want 360DPI. Photo labs vary from 200-425 DPI, depending on the printer the lab uses. </p>

<p>FWIW, The human eye can resolve around 212PPI.</p>

<p><strong>@Larry:</strong> I've never seen Portra 160VC do this...wild indeed!</p>

 

<p>Guess it depends on the definition of a cheat sheet.</p>

<p>I keep a list of all the Custom Functions settings for my Elan 7, because try as I may I can never seem to remember what 0 and 1 is, and when my options are 0, 1, and 2, well, good luck!</p>

<p>Isn't this why they make duct tape? ;)</p>

<p>Why are you even asking permission to wear something other than what you know you should wear, that being formal attire? For chrissake, it is a formal affair, and you are trying to break into the professional wedding market? What sort of image do you think you'll project showing up in anything less than proper wedding attire? Quit your whining and dress the part!</p>

 

<p>Mauro, I've seen better results from the V750 than you are showing here.<br>

I have also seen better results from the 9000 than you are showing here.<br>

The takeaway is it all comes down to the operator. Forget the numbers and technical-marketing hype.<br>

It takes time, patience, and skill to get the most out of any scanner, be it a Canon, Epson, Nikon, or Imacon.</p>

 

<p>Super! Thanks for the advice!</p>

<p>Hoping someone can point me in the direction of someplace in the US that sells Kodak E100VS 135-36 in 20 roll pro packs.<br>

If I have to buy 20 single rolls, I'll do it, but I'm used to buying in bulk.<br>

Thanks!</p>

 

<p>I have both the 17-40L and the 100mm f/2.8 macro which I used for 5 years on my 10D, and have recently gone back to film, using them on an Elan 7 body. This combo is excellent for the type of work I do (fine art landscapes, macro, and the occasional commercial shoot - clients are landscaping design firms).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Digital is also a lot cheaper.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, that's only what the camera manufacturers would like you to believe.</p>

<p>The version of DPP you have - did it come with the XT? <br>

If so, you may need to download the free update from Canon's website to gain support for the XTi.</p>

<p>What res are you scanning at?</p>

<p>Bengt,<br>

I've been experimenting with the method you suggest and, in most cases, it does indeed result in sharper scans. My issue now has to due with a tonal mismatch between the preview image and the resulting scan.<br>

Have you found a solution for this? Scans using green channel consistently come out darker than the preview.<br>

I've tried compensating for this using the Curves tool as well as the Midtone slider adjustment, but it seems the shadows are saved at the expense of the highlights.<br>

Any suggestions?<br>

Tim</p>

 

<p>What is your subject? If landscapes you can't beat 50. If something else it's a toss up really.<br>

Under controlled lighting I tend to like the look of either Kodak E100GX or the less saturated Provia 100.<br>

For skin tones, if you must do slide, Astia produces some really beautiful results.</p>

<p>Page doesn't load</p>

<p>Aimee, just wondering how you survive? Last I checked you couldn't put food on the table through good will.</p>

<p>As the others have mentioned, you can shoot 120 or 220. 6x8 gives you 8 frames per roll of 120.<br>

The now discontinued Fuji GX680-series studio cameras use 6x8 backs (hence the 680 moniker).<br>

I believe the Mamiya RB67 or RZ67 has/had a 6x8 motorized film back option.<br>

The other option is to shoot 6x7 with a Mamiya RB/RZ/7 (or Pentax 67-series), or use a large format camera equipped with a 6x9 rollfilm back (Horseman or similar).<br /> Hope this helps!</p>

<p>What make and model of film were you scanning? Did you apply any sharpening? Grain reduction? ICE?</p>

<p>Why not go back to shooting film? You can pick up a gently used Nikon FE2 + a few lenses + a Nikon Coolscan 5000 and be money in the bank. Not only does an FE2 with 50mm lens weight at least a pound less than the D200 (or two less than the D700), but the scans you'll get form the 5000 will blow the doors off of anything you'd shoot with a D700, AND you'll be able to produce larger prints.</p>

<p>Precision Imaging in Chicago gets my nod - their staff are great and they run a clean lab:<br>

http://www.precisionimagechicago.com/</p>

<p>I have a very simple goal this year - to buy a 35mm film SLR, a bunch of Kodachrome, and photograph the Kodachrome Basin in Utah. I've got the camera, and will be placing the order for the film this month, for the trip in June.<br>

Looking forward to documenting a magical place with a magical namesake.</p>

<p>What format? 35? 120? 4x5?<br>

For 35mm color work, Portra 400NC is hard to beat.<br>

For 120, I really like Portra 160, either NC or VC depending on the subject.</p>

<p>Anything by Kodak or Fuji will scan well depending on your technique and the software (not necessariyl in that order). Silverfast supports Kodachrome and the results are impressive. If your scanner supports iSRD or SRD (Silverfast software features) you can even remove dust & scratches a la Digital ICE.</p>

<blockquote>

 

<p><em>"2- Wipe the film thorughly (dry only since wet can deform it)"</em><br>

<em>So wet film cleaners are bad?</em></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I have no idea what this means. I use Pec-12 film cleaner (which is wet) and have had no problems.</p>